Last night I wrote down my snap reactions to the fourth Republican debate. Today, rather than looking backwards again, I'm going to instead look forward (both literally and figuratively) to the upcoming Democratic debate which will be held this Saturday night.

The Democratic field has certainly tightened, in contrast to the free-for-all happening on the Republican side. Since the race began, the Republican field has shrunk from 17 announced candidates down to only 15. Their debates have needed two separate sessions each, just to fit everyone on the stage. Their main debate has featured anywhere from eight to 11 candidates, with the remainder getting a non-prime-time "kids' table" debate. During the same time period, the Democratic field has shrunk from six candidates down to three.

Continue Reading »

Tonight was debate night once again on the Republican side of the presidential contest, and so it's time once again for some snap debate reactions. As usual, I'm writing this before checking out what the rest of the punditocracy thought about things. We'll see, tomorrow, whether my opinions coincide with anyone else's, but for now they're just my honest reactions.

Both debates tonight were wrapped in cotton balls, with questions only from deep within the conservative media bubble. Only one question, during the "kid's table" debate, even came close to straying off the reservation, and it was promptly ignored by everyone on the stage. Perhaps because of this, there were no direct attacks on the moderators and very little interchange between any of the candidates (at least in the main event).

Continue Reading »

It's been a few weeks since I surveyed the Republican presidential field, but recent developments seem to indicate it's time to take another look. Mostly this is because the mainstream media all seem to be ignoring an actual story (even a horserace story!), to instead focus on an artificial narrative imposed by Fox Business Network (the host of tomorrow night's GOP debate). While much attention has been paid to Fox's reshuffling of who will appear on which debate stage, virtually nobody's talking about the complete collapse of Carly Fiorina's polling. She can't even now be considered a plausible Republican nominee, when not that long ago she was solidly in third place in the polls. This is a pretty major development, and it has resulted in the field of Republicans with any sort of believable shot at winning the nomination shrinking from six to only five.

Carly's collapse was predicted by few, and now that it's happening it is also being noticed by few. She became a media darling after solid performances in the first two debates, which pushed her Republican voter support up to 11.8 percent (behind Trump and Carson). Since then, however, she failed to make any waves in the third debate and now teeters on the brink of being disinvited to future main stages, standing overall in a three-way tie for sixth place, at only 3.0 percent in the polls. But again, while her quick rise got a lot of coverage, her "what goes up, must come down" fall hasn't attracted much media attention.

Continue Reading »

We're going to begin today with a definition, just because it's amusing to do so.

winnow vb -- 1 : to remove (as chaff from grain) by a current of air; also : to free (as grain) from waste in this manner  2 : to get rid of (something unwanted).

Yes, we have entered the winnowing phase of the Republican presidential primary process, as those two bastions of the liberal media -- Fox Business Network and the Wall Street Journal -- announce they're downsizing who will be allowed into the next televised debate. They are, by definition, getting rid of something unwanted -- in this case, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee. They are freeing debate-watchers from wasting their time listening to either one. Even the kids' table debate got winnowed, bumping Lindsey Graham and George Pataki off the airwaves entirely. Maybe they can get together with Jim Gilmore in a bar somewhere, and watch it on the teevee. One can only imagine the drinking game they'd come up with.

Continue Reading »

Flattest Year Ever Continues

Barack Obama has had not only his most stable year of job approval polling, but quite likely the most stable year ever recorded for any president (since scientific public opinion polling began). Now, this doesn't mean Obama's been charting extraordinarily good numbers (he is roughly 13 points lower than President Bill Clinton was, at this point in his second term), nor extraordinarily bad numbers (Obama is also polling 13 points above where George W. Bush was, at this point) -- but Obama's numbers have indeed been extraordinarily stable. Both his job approval monthly average and his job disapproval monthly average have kept within a range of around one percent, all year long.

You can see this in the chart. Just before the calendar year began, Obama got a big spike upwards in job approval. Since January, however, things have been pretty flat.

[Click on graph to see larger-scale version.]

October, 2015

Continue Reading »

There were two stories from last night's election results that were immediately spun as "wins" for Democrats and progressives: a ballot measure in Ohio concerning state legislative redistricting, and three Democrats winning state supreme court seats in Pennsylvania. But only the Pennsylvania one is really a partisan victory -- the Ohio measure is instead a victory for representative democracy itself (even if Democrats will be the ones to benefit from the change).

Redistricting is about as wonky a subject as can be imagined in American politics, and it only gets attention from serious partisans because they know it can affect their party's chances in overwhelming ways. Most people only have a vague idea of the concept of redistricting, although pretty much everyone knows the term "gerrymandering."

Continue Reading »

It is with a very heavy heart I write today, as we have lost a beloved member of our editorial staff here at ChrisWeigant.com headquarters. Here she is in happier times, supervising the writing process.

Continue Reading »

The Republican presidential candidates don't seem to realize it, but they're in the process of seriously undermining their own "tough guy" brand. Republicans have always seen themselves as "the Daddy party" (as opposed to Democrats' "Mommy party," of course), which has always meant no-nonsense toughness in the face of any opposition to their agenda. But how can American voters square this with the collective hissy fit the GOP candidates are now throwing over debate moderators? To put it the most obvious way, why should any voter believe that any of these folks will be able to get tough with (for example) Vladimir Putin, when they can't even handle snarky questions from journalists? Republicans seem to have now embraced what was (ironically) a major political problem for Jeb Bush's father -- the wimp factor.

Continue Reading »

Welcome to our annual frightfest! Each year we crank up the special effects soundtrack [Cue: rattling chains, unholy moaning, shrieking harpies in the night, and maniacal organ music in a very minor key....] and present our very own scary stories for both sides of the political aisle. This year's presidential campaign is frightening enough, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum, so we had to get rather outlandish for one of these stories. The other one is bone-chilling for a very different reason: because it's so uncomfortably close to actual fears some voters are now having, to some degree or another. Both should be equally spine-tingling, for their respective audiences, though.

A few notes are in order, before we begin this year's horrorshow. First, to all our student readers, the deadline for entering the Museum Of Political Corruption essay contest (answering the question: "What is political corruption and why should we care?") is fast approaching. First prize (I ever-so-humbly mention) includes getting your essay published in this column, so while you're stuffing your face with candy on Sunday, take some time to put your thoughts down and be sure to mail your entry in by Monday's deadline!

The Jack O'Lanterns were kind of hard to carve this year, so please no comments on how lame they came out. Hey, you try to carve Trump's hair or an F.B.I. badge into a pumpkin and see how you do! Heh. Anyway, for the curious, yes, they are real old-school carved Jack O'Lanterns, and not some computer-created art (if they were, they'd doubtlessly look a lot better, right?).

We're going to present the Republican nightmare first this year, for no particular reason (it's far longer than the Democratic one, I should mention), and the more eagle-eyed among you might notice a certain similarity to two Simpsons Hallowe'en stories, to say nothing of Mulder and Scully's appearance (hey, they're back together again, right?). To such criticism we can only reply with Mark Twain's immortal observation: "Immature humorists borrow. Mature humorists steal." Or, if that's too erudite for you, another cartoon's insight might help: South Park's revelation that "The Simpsons have done everything already!" So there.

One final note, our regular "Friday Talking Points" columns will resume next week, same bat time, same bat channel.

Speaking of bats, let's just get on with the spooky Hallowe'en show. Sit back -- on whichever side of the aisle you like -- and be prepared to be scared right down to your rattling bones!

Republican Nightmare -- Hair Today, Goon Tomorrow

Continue Reading »

I haven't done one of these types of column in a while, but figured it was a good time to do so, since I punted on writing yesterday to get interviewed on HuffPost Live and since tomorrow is our annual Hallowe'en column, with a scary nightmare story for both left and right. Because of all this, there's been a lot of political news made this week and I have nowhere else to talk about it all than here.

"Three-dot" is, as always, an homage to the late, great Herb Caen's column about San Francisco (which he charmingly called "Baghdad By The Bay" -- this was before our recent wars there, I should mention). The format is simple: short commentary separated by ellipses (...) -- hence "three-dot journalism." So with no further explanations necessary, here we go...

...So there was a Republican debate last night, and everybody wound up hating the moderators and the network which hosted it. Out of all the clamor against CNBC, nobody could quite agree on why the awfulness level was so high, but everyone agreed it was a Titanic-level disaster. Some decried what they called "gotcha" questions, and they do have a point when one of the questions (to Donald Trump, but even so...) was: "Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?" Trump missed a great comeback to this, which would have been: "No, but this sure seems to be a comic-book version of a presidential debate"...

Continue Reading »